TECHNICAL AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE

Third Regular Session

27 September – 02 October 2007

Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia

SEABIRD BYCATCH MITIGATION: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PELAGIC

LONGLINE FISHING AND PRIORITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

WCPFC-TCC3-2007/OP-01

Prepared by Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)

Abstract

ACAP’s Seabird Bycatch Working Group (SBWG) recently reviewed available research on

seabird bycatch mitigation measures for pelagic longline fishing to identify knowledge gaps and

priorities for future research on pelagic mitigation technologies. A literature review of mitigation

measures showed that some of the measures under consideration by the WCPFC for use in

Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02 would benefit from further development and

testing. These measures were identified and priority-ranked. Minimum standards for specific

mitigation measures were also identified and are provided to assist the WCPFC Scientific and

Technical and Compliance Committees in advising the Commission on developing minimum

technical specifications for use in Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02. ACAP’s

Advisory Committee endorsed the outcomes of the SBWG’s work, as representing the current

best scientific advice, and encourages the WCPFC Scientific and Technical and Compliance

Committees and WCPFC Members to work together with ACAP to conduct research on these

measures as a part of implementing Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02.

2

Introduction

The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) held the first meeting of

its SBWG in Valdivia, Chile on 17-18 June 2007. This working group was formed to advise the

Agreement on actions that will assist in assessment, mitigation and reduction of negative

interactions between fishing operations and albatrosses and petrels. The working group comprises

representatives from ACAP’s 11 Parties, together with invited experts with relevant technical or

other expertise. Its meeting was followed by that of ACAP’s Advisory Committee, the technical

body which oversees the work of ACAP’s working groups.

A full report of the SBWG’s proceedings can be found at www.acap.aq (AC3 Doc 14 Rev 4).

The report provides a summary of issues discussed relating to bycatch mitigation and priorities

for further research. The SBWG believes that it may be of use to the WCPFC in developing

research and management approaches to mitigate seabird bycatch its fisheries.

WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02

The SBWG noted and welcomed the initiative by the WCPFC to improve the implementation of

mitigation measures for seabirds. In particular, it commended the approach requiring fishers to

select two measures, to be used in combination, from a ‘menu’ of seabird mitigation technical

measures (Attachment A).

The Working Group further noted that based on its review of the current applicability and known

effectiveness of seabird mitigation measures in pelagic longline fisheries (Table 2), some of the

measures currently listed by WCPFC would benefit from further specification, development

and/or testing. Some of the key issues include:

(a) the need to further develop specifications in respect of streamer lines to ensure maximum

effectiveness;

(b) the need to better define side-setting methods and to test them in higher latitude fisheries,

especially those with diving seabirds and a diversity of albatross species;

(c) the reconsideration of using bait casting as a recommended mitigation measure;

(d) the need to further develop underwater setting techniques as they are not yet suitable for

general application, and

(e) the need to increase understanding of the effectiveness of different combinations of

mitigation measures.

Review of Pelagic Longline Mitigation Measures

A primary focus of the SBWG meeting was to update information on current mitigation research

for pelagic longline fisheries. The SBWG participants described a number of new developments

in the testing of seabird bycatch mitigation methods around the world. They included: a new

demersal longline system that reduces both seabird and marine mammal bycatch, development of

bird scaring lines for pelagic longline fisheries, an underwater bait-setting capsule, a bait pod and

a “smart hook” that deny seabirds access to hooks during the setting process, safe leads that

permit additional weight to be added to pelagic gear whilst improving the safety for fishers, the

use of naturally occurring oils to deter seabirds from attending fishing operations, and the

effectiveness of blue-dyed squid (as opposed to blue-dyed fish) as a mitigation measure. The

SBWG was also presented with information on poorly-known hook and line fisheries in Brazil,

and mitigation research in Uruguay and Argentina. An update on BirdLife International’s

3

Albatross Task Force, an international team of mitigation instructors to work with fishers and

fisheries managers in global seabird bycatch ‘hotspots’, was also provided.

From this information the SBWG identified the need for a coordinated approach to mitigation

research. The SBWG recognised the need to identify and prioritize research initiatives that can

together provide critical information to establish the relative effects of mitigation technologies on

seabirds, target fish and all other taxa. This would permit substantial advances in the development

of best management practices that are effective and acceptable (safe, cost effective and

reasonable) to the fishing industry and to fishery managers. It was agreed that this could best be

realized through a collaborative approach that pooled scarce resources (expertise, scientists and

funding) and addressed appropriate seabird species and/or foraging guilds, fishery target species,

and categories of fishing gear and vessels types. Collaboration might also include the

development of a common protocol for data collection, including the standardization of critical

variables to be measured, in mitigation research for pelagic fisheries.

The SBWG recognised that interactions with pelagic fisheries managed by several key RFMOs

may constitute the largest conservation threat to seabirds in the southern oceans. The SBWG

noted that several seabird avoidance measures have been trialled to varying degrees in pelagic

fisheries. However, the SBWG indicated that many of these RFMOs are taking steps to adopt

mitigation measures for which there may be substantial certainty regarding their effectiveness

and/or applicability in each of the RFMOs’ particular fisheries. There was also discussion of the

need to test the effectiveness of combining different mitigation measures. The SBWG

acknowledged that RFMOs might benefit from a prioritized plan for testing and further defining

such measures.

In order to progress the development of relevant mitigation research, the SBWG commenced a

process designed to develop a plan of research for pelagic longline fisheries, including identifying

specific research experiments needed, principal investigators, best host locations, and possible

funding sources. This involved:

1. An assessment of the suitability of pelagic mitigation technologies for future research and

application. Mitigation measures were grouped as primary, secondary, or other, and a priority

ranking for future research assigned on a 5 point scale. Primary measures were those considered

likely to be effective without other mitigation measures, and secondary measures were those

considered useful for deployment in combination with other measures, but unlikely to

significantly reduce bycatch if used in isolation. Priority rankings were based on several critical

elements, such as practicality, safety, cost, and effectiveness with different seabird types. The

results of this assessment are shown in Table 1, together with details of the criteria used for

assessment.

2. Review of seabird bycatch mitigation measures for pelagic longline fishing and

identification of knowledge gaps. The review was based on published literature and expert input

from the SBWG. The results of the review are shown in Table 2, including minimum technical

standards for such measures.

The Advisory Committee encourages the WCPFC to use these materials to guide the

development of policy and practice within fisheries under its jurisdiction. As mitigation measures

continue to be tested and refined, the SBWG offers its ongoing technical assistance to the

WCPFC in this matter.

Priorities for Research

The SBWG concluded that from a global research perspective, bird scaring lines, the bait setting

capsule and side setting were the highest priority for further research and development. Weighted

4

branchlines, the bait pod, smart hooks and circle hooks were high priorities; and blue dyed squid

was of moderate priority. Research on technologies such as the underwater setting chute, night

setting, line shooters, thawed bait, strategic offal discharge, blue-dyed fish, fish oil and bait

casting machines, were considered a lower priority and were not discussed further. With respect

to night setting, the Working Group acknowledged the effectiveness of this mitigation measure

for many seabird species, but believed further research on this was not needed.

The Working Group agreed that seabird bycatch mitigation research should best be carried out in

locations where and during seasons in which seabird interactions with pelagic gear are most

intense, as it is these locations that would yield the most useful research outcomes. Locations

where aggressive species are most abundant and overlap with fisheries were identified, including

the pelagic fisheries of Chile in winter, Uruguay and Brazil from May through September, and in

South Africa in winter. BirdLife International reported that Albatross Task Force personnel are

either in place or will soon be in place in Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, South Africa and Namibia and

are available to collaborate in seabird bycatch mitigation research programs, as needed.

Specific Research Projects Identified

Specific research projects are being undertaken and by WCPFC member nations that may be of

relevance for WCPFC pelagic longline fisheries. Australia has led the development of the bait

setting capsule, a device designed to deliver baited hooks to a depth beyond the access of

foraging seabirds at the stern of a pelagic longline vessel (SBWG1/Paper 3). Dr. Graham

Robertson of the Australia Antarctic Division has acquired funding to develop a prototype and

conduct pilot research to demonstrate the efficient performance of the prototype capsule. Pending

a positive outcome of pilot research, Dr. Robertson will seek funding to carry out comprehensive

research to determine the relative performance of the bait setting capsule, side setting and

conventional stern setting. A location to stage this research effort has not been established at this

stage. If proven effective, this measure may be applicable to WCPFC fisheries.

Ed Melvin of the Washington SeaGrant Program in the the United States is developing a streamer

line system for pelagic longline fisheries and to trial the streamer line system in two “worst case”

southern hemisphere, pelagic fisheries. Funding is in place to carry out this research. Trials will

compare the relative efficiency of the streamer line designed to a control of no deterrent and to a

second mitigation technology to be determined. The host locations will include South Africa and

either Brazil, Chile or Uruguay. Work is scheduled to be completed in 2009, and could benefit

WCPFC fisheries if proven effective.

Researchers in New Zealand , Australia, and the US will be testing “safe lead”, a new product

which promises to eliminate safety issues related to weighted branchlines. It is planned to pilot-

level test these weights in 2007 within Australian, New Zealand and US (Hawaii) fisheries. These

fisheries are similar to those prosecuted by the WCPFC, making this research project also very

relevant.

Development of Technical Specifications

The SBWG discussed the need for minimum standards for various seabird bycatch mitigation

measures. The SBWG was encouraged to note that the Commission has agreed to adopt minimum

technical specifications for the mitigation measures found in WCPFC Conservation and

Management Measure 2006-02. Information found in the last column of Table 2 may be of

particular use to the WCPFC as it undertakes this work.

Recommendation

It is recommended that WCPFC’s Scientific, and Technical and Compliance Committees:

5

1. Consider the need to further test and develop many seabird bycatch mitigation measures,

including those found in WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02 (see

a-e in RFMO section of this paper).

2. Encourage the WCPFC and its members to work collaboratively, taking into account the

work of the ACAP SBWG, in particular information contained within Table 1, in

carrying out future research into mitigation measures.

3. Take into account the work of the SBWG, in particular that information contained within

Table 2, in the elaboration of technical specifications for mitigation measures found in

WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02.

4. Encourage the WCPFC to seek guidance from the ACAP as needed, in carrying out the

above activities.

6

Table 1. Assessment of the suitability of pelagic mitigation technologies for future research and application. Rankings have been

assigned on a 5 point scale, where 5 is the highest ranking. See below for details of the criteria used for assessment.

Mitigation

Effective

surface

feeding

birds

Effective

diving birds Practical Safe

Cost

Capital

Cost

Ops

DWF/

Dom Compliance

Future

Research

Priority

Primary

Streamer lines 4 3 4 4 5 5 5/5 1 5

Weighted branchlines 4 3 5 1 4 4 5/5 5 4

Underwater Setting

Chute 2 1 2 3 2 5 1/5 1 1

Bait setting capsule 5 4* 4 4 2 5 5/5 3 5

Bait Pod / Smart hooks 5 4* 3 4* 4 4 5/5 1 4

Night Setting 4 3 5 4 5 3* 5/5 3 1

Secondary

Circle Hooks ? ? 5 5 5 5 5/5 5 4

Bait placement/casting 2* 2* 5 3 4 4 5/5 1 1

Line shooter? 2 2 5 4 4 4 5/5 1 1

Thawed bait 2 2 3 5 5 5 5/5 1 1

Strategic offal discharge 2 2 3 5 5 5 5/5 1 1

Other

Side Setting 2* 2* 3 4 4 5 5/5 5 5

Blue Dyed Squid 3 3 3 5 5 4 5/5 1 3

Blue Dyed Fish 1 1 3 5 5 4 5/5 1 1

Fish Oil 1 4 2 4 4 3 5/5 1 2

7

Each mitigation method was grouped as primary, secondary, or other. Primary measures were those considered likely to be effective without

other mitigation measures, and secondary measures were those considered useful for deployment with other measures, but may not significantly

reducing bycatch if used in isolation. Side setting, blue-dyed fish and squid bait, and fish oil were regarded as possible candidates for primary

mitigation but were considered separately due to their early stage of development and/or limited research results to date. Acoustic alarms, water

jets, time-area closures, and artificial lures/bait were not considered. Each was assigned a priority ranking for future research based on the

scientific literature and individual experience using the following criteria:

— Effectiveness on surface foraging seabirds

— Effectiveness on diving seabirds

— Practical use on the vessel

— Safe use on the vessel

— Capital Cost – costs for purchase of a specific technology

— Operational Cost – costs related to vessel operations (lost fishing time)

— Applicability to distant water fleets and domestic fleets

— Compliance – the ability to monitor use and performance

Each method was ranked for each criterion on a relative scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest ranking and 5 being the highest. Considering the

ranking for each criterion, each mitigation method was ranked in a similar way resulting in a prioritized list of mitigation methods to focus future

research.

8

Table 2. Review of seabird bycatch mitigation measures for Pelagic Longline Fishing and identification of knowledge gaps

Mitigation

measure

Scientific evidence for

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries

Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards

Night setting Duckworth 1995; Brothers

et al. 1999; Gales et al

1998; Klaer & Polacheck

1998; Brothers et al. 1999;

McNamara et al. 1999;

Gilman et al. 2005; Baker &

Wise 2005.

Less effective during full moon,

under intensive deck lighting or

in high latitude fisheries in

summer. Less effective on

nocturnal foragers e.g. White-

chinned Petrels (Brothers et al.

1999; Cherel et al. 1996).

Recommend

combination with bird

scaring lines and/or

weighted branch lines

Data on current time of sets

by WCPFC fisheries. Effect

of night sets on target catch

for different fisheries.

Night defined as nautical

dark to nautical dawn.

During longline fishing at

night, only the minimum

ship’s lights necessary for

safety shall be used.

Side setting Brothers & Gilman 2006;

Yokota & Kiyota 2006.

Definition essential. Only

effective if hooks are sufficiently

below the surface by the time

they reach the stern of the vessel.

In Hawaii, side-setting trials were

conducted with bird curtain and

45-60g weighted swivels placed

within 0.5m of hooks. Japanese

research concludes must be used

with other measures (Yokota &

Kiyota 2006).

Should be combined

with other measures.

Successful Hawaii trials

use bird curtain plus

weighted branch lines.

In Southern

Hemisphere, strongly

recommend use with

bird scaring lines until

side-setting is tested in

the region.

Currently untested in the

Southern Ocean against

seabird assemblages of

diving seabirds and

albatrosses - urgent need for

research. In Japan, NRIFSF

will continue testing in 2007.

(1) Side-setting. Owners and

operators of vessels opting to

side-set under this section must

fish according to the following

specifications:

(i) The mainline must be

deployed as far forward on

the vessel as practicable,

and at least 1 m (3.3 ft)

forward from the stern of

the vessel;

(ii) The mainline and branch

lines must be set from the

port or the starboard side of

the vessel;

(iii) If a mainline shooter is

used, the mainline shooter

must be mounted as far

forward on the vessel as

practicable, and at least 1 m

(3.3 ft) forward from the

stern of the vessel;

(iv) Branch lines must have

weights with a minimum

weight of 45 g (1.6 oz);

(v) One weight must be

connected to each branch

line within 1 m (3.3 ft) of

each hook;

(vi) When seabirds are present,

9

Mitigation

measure

Scientific evidence for

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries

Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards

the longline gear must be

deployed so that baited

hooks remain submerged

and do not rise to the sea

surface; and

(vii) A bird curtain must be

deployed. Each bird curtain

must consist of the

following three

components: a pole that is

fixed to the side of the

vessel aft of the line shooter

and which is at least 3 m

(9.8 ft) long; at least three

main streamers that are

attached at regular intervals

to the upper 2 m (6.6 ft) of

the pole and each of which

has a minimum diameter of

20 mm (0.8 in); and branch

streamers attached to each

main streamer at the end

opposite from the pole, each

of which is long enough to

drag on the sea surface in

the absence of wind, and

each of which has a

minimum diameter 10 mm

(0.4 in).

10

Mitigation

measure

Scientific evidence for

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries

Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards

Single bird

scaring line

Imber 1994; Uozomi &

Takeuchi 1998; Brothers et

al. 1999; Klaer & Polacheck

1998; McNamara et al.

1999; Boggs 2001;

CCAMLR 2002; Minami &

Kiyota 2004. Melvin 2003.

Effective only when streamers

are positioned over sinking baits.

In pelagic fisheries, baited hooks

are unlikely to sink beyond the

diving depths of diving seabirds

within the 150 m zone of the bird

scaring line, unless combined

with other measures such as line

weighting or underwater setting.

Entanglement with fishing gear

can lead to poor compliance by

fishers and design issues need to

be addressed. In crosswinds, bird

scaring line must be deployed

from the windward side to be

effective.

Effectiveness increased

when combined with

other measures e.g.

weighted branch lines

and/or night setting

Optimal design for pelagic

fisheries under development:

refine to minimise tangling,

optimise aerial extent and

positioning, and ease

hauling/retrieval. Two

studies in progress

developing optimal bird

scaring lines for pelagic

fisheries including

Washington Sea Grant and

Global Guardian Trust in

Japan. Controlled studies

demonstrating their

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries remain very limited.

Current minimum standards

for pelagic fisheries are

based on CCAMLR

Conservation Measure 25-02

(copy provided at

Attachment B as a model of

best practice in a demersal

longline fishery.)

Paired bird

scaring lines

Two streamer lines best in

crosswinds to maximise

protection of baited hooks

(Melvin et al. 2004).

Potentially increased likelihood

of entanglement - see above.

Development of a towed device

that keeps gear from crossing

surface gear essential to improve

adoption and compliance.

Effectiveness will be

increased when

combined with other

measures. Recommend

use with weighted

branch lines and/or

night setting

Development and trialling of

paired bird scaring line

systems for pelagic fisheries.

Current minimum standards

for pelagic fisheries are

based on CCAMLR

Conservation Measure 25-02

(Attachment B – model of

best practice in demersal

longline fishery.)

Weighted

branch lines

Brothers 1991; Boggs 2001;

Sakai et al. 2001; Brothers

et al. 2001; Anderson &

McArdle 2002; Gilman et

al. 2003a; Robertson 2003;

Lokkeborg & Robertson

2002, Hu et al. 2005.

Supplementary measure. Weights

will shorten but not eliminate the

zone behind the vessel in which

birds can be caught. Even in

demersal fisheries where weights

are much heavier, weights must

be combined with other

mitigation measures (e.g.

CCAMLR Conservation Measure

25-02).

Should be combined

with other measures e.g.

bird scaring lines and/or

night setting

Mass and position of weight

both affect sink rate. Further

research on weighting

regimes needed. Testing of

safe-leads in progress. Where

possible, effect on target

catch as well as seabird

bycatch should be evaluated.

Research on use of

integrated-weight branch

lines (wire trace) in pelagic

fisheries also needs further

exploration.

Global minimum standards

not yet established. Based

on research conducted in

Hawaii and Australia the

following weight regime is

recommended:

• Weights to be attached

to all branch lines :

• minimum of 45

grams weight

attached to all branch lines;

• less than 60

grams weight

11

Mitigation

measure

Scientific evidence for

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries

Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards

must be within 1

meter of the

hook;

• greater than 60,

and less than 80

grams weight

must be within 2

meters of the

hook;

• greater than 80

grams and less

than 100 grams

must be within 3 meters of the

hook; and

• greater than 100

grams must be

within 4 meters of

the hook

with a view to obtaining a

sink rate of .3m per

second to a 2m depth.

Blue dyed bait Boggs 2001; Brothers 1991;

Gilman et al. 2003a;

Minami & Kiyota 2001;

Minami & Kiyota 2004;

Lydon & Starr 2005.

Double and Cocking, in

press.

New data suggests only effective

with squid bait (Double &

Cocking). Onboard dyeing

requires labour and is difficult

under stormy conditions. Results

inconsistent across studies.

Should be combined

with bird scaring lines

or night setting

Need for tests in Southern

Ocean.

Mix to standardized colour

placard or specify (e.g. use

'Brilliant Blue' food dye

(Colour Index 42090, also

known as Food Additive

number E133) mixed at

0.5% for a minimum of 20

minutes). Thawed or partly-

thawed squid to be used.

12

Mitigation

measure

Scientific evidence for

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries

Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards

Management of

offal discharge

McNamara et al. 1999;

Cherel et al. 1996.

Supplementary measure.

Definition essential. Offal

attracts birds to vessels and

where practical should be

eliminated or restricted to

discharge when not setting or

hauling. Strategic discharge

during line setting can increase

interactions and should be

discouraged. Offal retention

and/or incineration may be

impractical on small vessels.

Should be combined

with other measures.

Further information needed

on opportunities and

constraints in pelagic

fisheries (long and short

term).

Not yet established for

pelagic fisheries. In

CCAMLR demersal

fisheries, discharge of offal

is prohibited during line

setting. During line hauling,

storage of waste is

encouraged, and if

discharged must be

discharged on the opposite

side of the vessel to the

hauling bay. (refer

Attachment A)

Thawing bait Brothers 1991; Duckworth

1995; Klaer & Polacheck;

Brothers et al 1999.

Supplementary measure. Should

be combined with other

measures. If lines are set early

morning, full thawing of all bait

may create practical difficulties.

Evaluate sink rate of partially

thawed bait.

Line shooter Quantitative testing in

demersal fisheries only.

Reduced bycatch of

Northern Fulmar in trials of

mitigation measures in

North Sea, Lokkeborg &

Robertson 2002; Lokkeborg

2003. Increased seabird

bycatch in Alaska (Melvin

et al. 2001).

Supplementary measure. No

published data for pelagic

fisheries. May enhance hook sink

rates in some situations but

unlikely to eliminate the zone

behind the vessel in which birds

can be caught. More data needed.

Found ineffective in trials in

North Pacific demersal longline

fishery (Melvin et al. 2001).

Should be combined

with other measures

such as night setting

and/or bird scaring lines

or weighted branch lines

Data needed on effects on

hook sink rates with line

shooter in pelagic fisheries.

Not established

13

Mitigation

measure

Scientific evidence for

effectiveness in pelagic

fisheries

Caveats /Notes Need for combination Research needs Minimum standards

Bait caster Duckworth 1995; Klaer &

Polacheck 1998.

Not a mitigation measure unless

casting machines are available

with the capability to control the

distance at which baits are cast.

This is necessary to allow

accurate delivery of baits under a

bird scaring line. Needs more

development. Few commercially-

available machines have this

capability.

Not recommended as a

mitigation measure.

Underwater

setting chute

Brothers 1991; Boggs 2001;

Gilman et al. 2003a; Gilman

et al. 2003b; Sakai et al.

2004; Lawrence et al. 2006.

For pelagic fisheries, existing

equipment not yet sturdy enough

for large vessels in rough seas.

Problems with malfunctions and

performance inconsistent (e.g.

Gilman et al. 2003a and

Australian trials cited in Baker &

Wise 2005)

Not recommended for

general application

Design problems to

overcome

Not yet established

Attachment A

THIRD REGULAR SESSION

Apia, Samoa

11-15 December 2006

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF

FISHING FOR HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS ON SEABIRDS

Conservation and Management Measure 2006-02

The Commission For The Conservation And Management Of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks In the

Western And Central Pacific Ocean

Concerned that some seabird species, notably albatrosses and petrels, are threatened with global

extinction.

Noting advice from the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

that together with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the greatest threat to Southern

Ocean seabirds is mortality in longline fisheries in waters adjacent to its Convention Area.

Noting scientific research into mitigation of seabird bycatch in surface longline fisheries has

showed that the effectiveness of various measures varies greatly depending on the vessel type,

season, and seabird species assemblage present.

Noting the advice of the Scientific Committee that combinations of mitigation measures are

essential for effective reduction of seabird bycatch.

Resolves as follows:

1. Commission Members, Cooperating Non Members and participating Territories (CCMs)

shall, to the extent possible, implement the International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental

Catches of Seabirds in Longline fisheries (IPOA-Seabirds) if they have not already done so.

2. CCMs shall report to the Commission on their implementation of the IPOA-Seabirds,

including, as appropriate, the status of their National Plans of Action for Reducing Incidental

Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries.

Adopts, in accordance with Article 5 (e) and 10( i)(c ) of the Convention on the Conservation and

Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean the

Commission the following measure to address seabird by-catch:

1. CCMs shall require their longline vessels to use at least two of the mitigation measures in

Table 1, including at least one from Column A in areas South of 30 degrees South and North of

23 degrees North.

2

Table 1: Mitigation measures Column A Column B

Side setting with a bird curtain and

weighted branch lines 1

Tori line2

Night setting with minimum deck lighting Weighted branch lines

Tori line Blue-dyed bait

Weighted branch lines Deep setting line shooter

Underwater setting chute

Management of offal discharge

2. In other areas, where necessary, CCMs are encouraged to employ one or more of the

seabird mitigation measures listed in Table 1.

3. The Commission will at its 2007 Annual Meeting adopt minimum technical

specifications for the mitigation measures, based on the advice and recommendations of SC3 and

TCC3.

4. Guidelines for measures described in Column A, until future research suggests otherwise,

are provided in Attachment 1.

5. Guidelines for technical specifications when applying mitigation measures in Column B

are provided in Attachment 2.

6. For research and reporting purposes, CCMs that fish in the area south of 30°S and north of

23°N shall submit, to the Commission by 30 November 2007, the specifications of the mitigation

measures listed in Columns A and B, that they will require their vessels to employ.

7. CCMs are encouraged to undertake research to further develop and refine measures to

mitigate seabird bycatch including mitigation measures for use during the hauling process.

Research should be undertaken in the fisheries and areas to which the measure will be used.

8. The SC and TCC will annually review any new information on new or existing mitigation

measures or on seabird interactions from observer or other monitoring programmes. Where

necessary an updated suite of mitigation measures, specifications for mitigation measures, or

recommendations for areas of application will then be provided to the Commission for its

consideration and review as appropriate.

9. CCMs are encouraged to adopt measures aimed at ensuring that seabirds captured alive

during longlining are released alive and in as good condition as possible and that wherever

possible hooks are removed without jeopardizing the life of the seabird concerned.

10. The inter-sessional working group for the regional observer programme (IWG-ROP) will

take into account the need to obtain detailed information on seabird interactions to allow analysis

of the effects of fisheries on seabirds and evaluation of the effectiveness of by-catch mitigation

measures.

1 This measure can only be applied in the area north of 23 degrees north until research establishes the utility

of this measure in waters south of 30 degrees south. If using side setting with a bird curtain and weighted

branch lines from column A this will be counted as two mitigation measures. 2 If tori line is selected from both Column A and Column B this equates to simultaneously using two (i.e.

paired) tori lines.

3

11. CCMs shall provide the Commission with all available information on interactions with

seabirds, including by-catches and details of species, to enable the Scientific Committee to

estimate seabird mortality in all fisheries to which the WCPF Convention applies.

12. Paragraph 1 of this Conservation and Management Measure shall be implemented by

CCMs in the following manner:

- In areas south of 30 degrees South, no later than 1st January 2008 in relation to large scale

longline vessels of 24 meters or more in overall length and no later than 31 January 2009

in relation to smaller longline vessels of less than 24 meters in overall length. .

- In areas North of 23 degrees North, and in relation to large scale longline vessels of 24

meters or more in overall length, no later than 30 June 2008.

13 CCMs shall as of 1 January 2007 initiate a process to ensure that vessels flying their flag

will be able to comply with the provisions of paragraph 1 within the deadlines referred to in

paragraph 12.

14. This Conservation and Management measure replaces Resolution 2005-01 which is

hereby repealed.

4

- Attachment 1: Guidelines for Column A mitigation measures.

1. Tori Lines:

• Minimum length: 100m

• Minimum aerial coverage: 90m

• Must be attached so that the aerial extent is maintained over the sinking baited hooks.

• Streamers must be less than 5m apart and be using swivels.

• Streamers must be long enough so that they are as close to the water as possible.

• If the tori line is less than 150m in length, must have a drogue attached to the end that

will create enough drag to meet the 90 meter coverage requirement.

2. Side setting with bird curtain and weighted branch lines:

• Mainline deployed from port or starboard side as far from stern as practicable (at least

1m), and if mainline shooter is used, must be mounted at least 1m forward of the stern.

• When seabirds are present the gear must ensure mainline is deployed slack so that baited

hooks remain submerged.

• Bird curtain must be employed:

o Pole aft of line shooter at least 3m long;

o Min of 3 main streamers attached to upper 2m of pole;

o Main streamer diameter min 20mm;

o Branch streamers attached to end of each main streamer long enough to drag on

water (no wind) – min diameter 10 mm.

3. Night setting:

• No setting between local sunrise and one hour after local sunset ; and

• Deck lighting to be kept to a minimum, noting requirements for safety and navigation.

4. Weighted branch lines:

• Weights attached to all branch lines:

o minimum of 45 grams weight attached to all branch lines;

o less than 60 grams weight must be within 1 meter of the hook;

o greater than 60 grams and less than 98 grams must be within 3.5 meters of the

hook; and

o greater than 98 grams must be within 4 meters of the hook

5

Attachment 2: Guidelines for Column B mitigation measures.

1. Weighted branch lines:

• Weights attached to all branch lines:

o minimum of 45 grams weight attached to all branch lines;

o less than 60 grams weight must be within 1 meter of the hook;

o greater than 60 grams and less than 98 grams must be within 3.5 meters of the

hook; and

o greater than 98 grams must be within 4 meters of the hook

2. Blue dyed bait:

• The Commission Secretariat shall distribute a standardized color placard.

• All bait must be dyed to the shade shown in the placard.

3. Management of Offal Discharge:

• Either:

o No offal discharge during setting or hauling; or

o Strategic offal discharge from the opposite side of the boat to setting/hauling to

actively encourage birds away from baited hooks.

6

Attachment B

CCAMLR CONSERVATION MEASURE 25-02 (2005)

Minimisation of the incidental mortality of seabirds in the course of longline fishing

or longline fishing research in the Convention Area

The Commission,

Noting the need to reduce the incidental mortality of seabirds during longline fishing by

minimising their attraction to fishing vessels and by preventing them from attempting to

seize baited hooks, particularly during the period when the lines are set,

Recognising that in certain subareas and divisions of the Convention Area there is also a

high risk that seabirds will be caught during line hauling,

Adopts the following measures to reduce the possibility of incidental mortality of

seabirds during longline fishing.

1. Fishing operations shall be conducted in such a way that hooklines3 sink beyond the

reach of seabirds as soon as possible after they are put in the water.

2. Vessels using autoline systems should add weights to the hookline or use integrated

weight hooklines while deploying longlines. Integrated weight (IW) longlines of a

minimum of 50 g/m or attachment to non-IW longlines of 5 kg weights at 50 to 60 m

intervals are recommended.

3. Vessels using the Spanish method of longline fishing should release weights before

line tension occurs; weights of at least 8.5 kg mass shall be used, spaced at intervals of

no more than 40 m, or weights of at least 6 kg mass shall be used, spaced at intervals

of no more than 20 m.

4. Longlines shall be set at night only (i.e. during the hours of darkness between the times

of nautical twilight4 5 ) . During longline fishing at night, only the minimum ship’s

lights necessary for safety shall be used.

5. The dumping of offal is prohibited while longlines are being set. The dumping of offal

during the haul shall be avoided. Any such discharge shall take place only on the

opposite side of the vessel to that where longlines are hauled. For vessels or fisheries

where there is not a requirement to retain offal on board the vessel, a system shall be

implemented to remove fish hooks from offal and fish heads prior to discharge.

6. Vessels which are so configured that they lack on-board processing facilities or

adequate capacity to retain offal on board, or the ability to discharge offal on the

opposite side of the vessel to that where longlines are hauled, shall not be authorised to

fish in the Convention Area.

7

7. A streamer line shall be deployed during longline setting to deter birds from

approaching the hookline. Specifications of the streamer line and its method of

deployment are given in the appendix to this measure.

8. A device designed to discourage birds from accessing baits during the haul of longlines

shall be employed in those areas defined by CCAMLR as average-to-high or high

(Level of Risk 4 or 5) in terms of risk of seabird by-catch. These areas are currently

Statistical Subareas 48.3, 58.6 and 58.7 and Statistical Divisions 58.5.1 and 58.5.2.

9. Every effort should be made to ensure that birds captured alive during longlining are

released alive and that wherever possible hooks are removed without jeopardising the

life of the bird concerned.

10. Other variations in the design of mitigation measures may be tested on vessels

carrying two observers, at least one appointed in accordance with the CCAMLR

Scheme of International Scientific Observation, providing that all other elements of

this conservation measure are complied with6. Full proposals for any such testing must

be notified to the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (WG-FSA) in advance of

the fishing season in which the trials are proposed to be conducted.

1 Except for waters adjacent to the Kerguelen and Crozet Islands

2 Except for waters adjacent to the Prince Edward Islands

3 Hookline is defined as the groundline or mainline to which the baited hooks are attached by snoods.

4 The exact times of nautical twilight are set forth in the Nautical Almanac tables for the relevant

latitude, local time and date. A copy of the algorithm for calculating these times is available from the

Secretariat. All times, whether for ship operations or observer reporting, shall be referenced to GMT.

5 Wherever possible, setting of lines should be completed at least three hours before sunrise (to reduce

loss of bait to/catches of white-chinned petrels).

6 The mitigation measures under test should be constructed and operated taking full account of the

principles set out in WG-FSA-03/22 (the published version of which is available from the CCAMLR

Secretariat and website); testing should be carried out independently of actual commercial fishing and

in a manner consistent with the spirit of Conservation Measure 21-02.

APPENDIX TO CONSERVATION MEASURE 25-02

1. The aerial extent of the streamer line, which is the part of the line supporting the

streamers, is the effective seabird deterrent component of a streamer line. Vessels are

encouraged to optimise the aerial extent and ensure that it protects the hookline as far

astern of the vessel as possible, even in crosswinds.

2. The streamer line shall be attached to the vessel such that it is suspended from a point a

minimum of 7 m above the water at the stern on the windward side of the point where the

hookline enters the water.

3. The streamer line shall be a minimum of 150 m in length and include an object towed at

the seaward end to create tension to maximise aerial coverage. The object towed should

be maintained directly behind the attachment point to the vessel such that in crosswinds

the aerial extent of the streamer line is over the hookline.

8

4. Branched streamers, each comprising two strands of a minimum of 3 mm diameter

brightly coloured plastic tubing7 or cord, shall be attached no more than 5 m apart

commencing 5 m from the point of attachment of the streamer line to the vessel and

thereafter along the aerial extent of the line. Streamer length shall range between

minimums of 6.5 m from the stern to 1 m for the seaward end. When a streamer line is

fully deployed, the branched streamers should reach the sea surface in the absence of

wind and swell. Swivels or a similar device should be placed in the streamer line in such

a way as to prevent streamers being twisted around the streamer line. Each branched

streamer may also have a swivel or other device at its attachment point to the streamer

line to prevent fouling of individual streamers.

5. Vessels are encouraged to deploy a second streamer line such that streamer lines are

towed from the point of attachment each side of the hookline. The leeward streamer line

should be of similar specifications (in order to avoid entanglement the leeward streamer

line may need to be shorter) and deployed from the leeward side of the hookline.

7 Plastic tubing should be of a type that is manufactured to be protected from ultraviolet radiation.